We can start with a
rough-and-ready definition of zoos: they are public parks which
display animals, primarily for the purposes of recreation or
education. Although large collections of animals were maintained
in antiquity, they were not zoos in this sense. Typically these
ancient collections were not exhibited in public parks, or they
were maintained for purposes other than recreation or education.

The Romans, for example,
kept animals in order to have living fodder for the games. Their
enthusiasm for the games was so great that even the first tigers
brought to Rome, gifts to Caesar Augustus from an Indian ruler,
wound up in the arena. The emperor Trajan staged 123 consecutive
days of games in order to celebrate his conquest of Dacia. Eleven
thousand animals were slaughtered, including lions, tigers,
elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, giraffes, bulls, stags,
crocodiles and serpents. The games were popular in all parts of
the Empire. Nearly every city had an arena and a collection of
animals to stock it. In fifth-century France there were twenty-six
such arenas, and they continued to thrive until at least the
eighth century.

In antiquity rulers also
kept large collections of animals as a sign of their power, which
they would demonstrate on occasion by destroying their entire
collections. This happened as late as 1719 when Elector Augustus
II of Dresden personally slaughtered his entire menagerie, which
included tigers, lions, bulls, bears and boars.

The first modern zoos were
founded in Vienna, Madrid and Paris in the eighteenth century and
in London and Berlin in the nineteenth. The first American zoos
were established in Philadelphia and Cincinnati in the 1870s.
Today in the United States alone there are hundreds of zoos, and
they are visited by millions of people every year. They range from
roadside menageries run by hucksters, to elaborate zoological
parks staffed by trained scientists.

The Roman games no longer
exist, though bullfights and rodeos follow in their tradition.
Nowadays the power of our leaders is amply demonstrated by their
command of nuclear weapons. Yet we still have zoos. Why?

ANIMALS AND LIBERTY

Before we consider the
reasons that are usually given for the survival of zoos, we should
see that there is a moral presumption against keeping wild animals
in captivity. What this involves, after all, is taking animals out
of their native habitats, transporting them great distances and
keeping them in alien environments in which their liberty is
severely restricted. It is surely true that in being taken from
the wild and confined in zoos, animals are deprived of a great
many goods. For the most part they are prevented from gathering
their own food, developing their own social orders and generally
behaving in ways that are natural to them. These activities all
require significantly more liberty than most animals are permitted
in zoos. If we are justified in keeping animals in zoos, it must
be because there are some important benefits that can be obtained
only by doing so.

This conclusion is not the
property of some particular moral theory; it follows from most
reasonable moral theories. Either we have duties to animals or we
do not. If we do have duties to animals, surely they include
respecting those interests which are most important to them, so
long as this does not conflict with other, more stringent duties
that we may have. Since an interest in not being taken from the
wild and kept confined is very important for most animals, it
follows that if everything else is equal, we should respect this
interest.

Suppose, on the other
hand, that we do not have duties to animals. There are two further
possibilities: either we have duties to people that sometimes
concern animals, or what we do to animals is utterly
without moral
import. The latter view is quite implausible, and I shall not
consider it further. People who have held the former view, that we
have duties to people that concern animals, have sometimes thought
that such duties arise because we can 'judge the heart of a man by
his treatment of animals', as Kant remarked in 'Duties to
Animals'. It is for this reason that he condemns the man who
shoots a faithful dog who has become too old to serve. If we
accept Kant's premise, it is surely plausible to say that someone
who, for no good reason, removes wild animals from their natural
habitats and denies them liberty is someone whose heart deserves
to be judged harshly. If this is so, then even if we believe that
we do not have duties to animals but only duties concerning them,
we may still hold that there is a presumption against keeping wild
animals in captivity. If this presumption is to be overcome, it
must be shown that there are important benefits that can be
obtained only by keeping animals in
zoos.

ARGUMENTS FOR ZOOS

What might some
of these important benefits be? Four are commonly cited:
amusement, education, opportunities for scientific research, and
help in preserving species.

Amusement was
certainly an important reason for the establishment of the early
zoos, and it remains an important function of contemporary zoos as
well. Most people visit zoos in order to be entertained, and any
zoo that wishes to remain financially sound must cater to this
desire. Even highly regarded zoos, like the San Diego Zoo, have
their share of dancing bears and trained birds of prey. But
although providing amusement for people is viewed by the general
public as a very important function of zoos, it is hard to see how
providing such amusement could possibly justify keeping wild
animals in captivity.

Most curators
and administrators reject the idea that the primary purpose of
zoos is to provide entertainment. Indeed, many agree that the
pleasure we take in viewing wild animals is not in itself a good
enough reason to keep them in captivity. Some curators see baby
elephant walks, for example, as a necessary evil, or defend such
amusements because of their role in educating people, especially
children, about animals. It is sometimes said that people must be
interested in what they are seeing if they are to be educated
about it,
and
entertainments keep people interested, thus making education
possible.

This brings us
to a second reason for having zoos: their role in education. This
reason has been cited as long as zoos have existed. For example,
in 1898 the New York Zoological Society resolved to take 'measures
to inform the public of the great decrease in animal life, to
stimulate sentiment in favor of better protection, and to
cooperate with other scientific bodies . . . [in] efforts
calculated to secure the perpetual preservation of our higher
vertebrates'. Despite the pious platitudes that are often uttered
about the educational efforts of zoos, however, there is little
evidence that zoos are very successful in educating people about
animals. Stephen Kellert's paper 'Zoological Parks in American
Society', delivered at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums in 1979, indicates
that zoo-goers are much less knowledgeable about animals than
backpackers, hunters, fishermen and others who claim an interest
in animals, and only slightly more knowledgeable than those who
claim no interest in animals at all. Even more disturbing,
zoo-goers express the usual prejudices about animals; 73 per cent
say they dislike rattlesnakes, 52 per cent vultures and only 4 per
cent elephants. One reason why some zoos have not done a better
job in educating people is that many of them make no real effort
at education. In the case of others the problem is an apathetic
and unappreciative public.

Edward G.
Ludwig's study of the zoo in Buffalo,
New York,
in the International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems
for 1981, revealed a surprising amount of dissatisfaction on
the part of young, scientifically inclined zoo employees. Much of
this dissatisfaction stemmed from the almost complete indifference
of the public to the zoo's educational efforts. Ludwig's study
indicated that most animals are viewed only briefly as people move
quickly past cages. The typical zoo-goer stops only to watch baby
animals or those who are begging, feeding or making sounds. Ludwig
reported that the most common expressions used to describe animals
are 'cute', 'funny-looking', 'lazy', 'dirty', 'weird' and
'strange'.

Of course, it
is undeniable that some education occurs in some zoos. But this
very fact raises other issues. What is it that we want people to
learn from visiting zoos? Facts about the physiology and behaviour
of various animals? Attitudes towards the survival of endangered
species? Compassion for the fate of all animals? To what degree
does education require keeping wild animals in captivity?

Couldn't most of the
educational benefits of zoos be obtained by presenting films,
slides, lectures and so forth? Indeed, couldn't most of the
important educational objectives better be achieved by exhibiting
empty cages with explanations of why they are empty?

A third reason for having
zoos is that they support scientific research. This too, is a
benefit that was pointed out long ago. Sir Humphrey Davy, one of
the founders of the Zoological Society of London, wrote in 1825:
'It would become Britain to offer another, and a very different
series of exhibitions to the population of her metropolis; namely,
animals brought from every part of the globe to be applied either
to some useful purpose, or as objects of scientific research - not
of vulgar admiration!' Zoos support scientific research in at
least three ways: they fund field research by scientists not
affiliated with zoos; they employ other scientists as members of
zoo staffs; and they make otherwise inaccessible animals available
for study.

The first point we should
note is that very few zoos support any real scientific research.
Fewer still have staff scientists with full-time research
appointments. Among those that do, it is common for their
scientists to study animals in the wild rather than those in zoo
collections. Much of this research, as well as other field
research that is supported by zoos, could just as well be funded
in a different wayŚ say, by a government agency. The question of
whether there should be zoos does not turn on the funding for
field research which zoos currently provide. The significance of
the research that is actually conducted in zoos is a more
important consideration.

Research that is conducted
in zoos can be divided into two categories: studies in behaviour
and studies in anatomy and pathology.

Behavioural research
conducted on zoo animals is very controversial. Some have argued
that nothing can be learned by studying animals that are kept in
the unnatural conditions that obtain in most zoos. Others have
argued that captive animals are more interesting research subjects
than are wild animals: since captive animals are free from
predation, they exhibit a wider range of physical and behavioural
traits than animals in the wild, thus permitting researchers to
view the full range of their genetic possibilities. Both of these
positions are surely extreme. Conditions in some zoos are natural
enough to permit some interesting research possibilities. But the
claim that captive animals are more interesting research subjects
than those in the wild is not very plausible. Environments trigger
behaviours. No doubt a predation-free environment triggers
behaviours different from those of an animal's natural habitat,
but there is no reason to believe that better, fuller or more
accurate data can be obtained in predation-free environments than
in natural habitats.

Studies in anatomy and
pathology are the most common forms of zoo research. Such research
has three main purposes: to improve zoo conditions so that captive
animals will live longer, be happier and breed more frequently; to
contribute to human health by providing animal models for human
ailments; and to increase our knowledge of wild animals for its
own sake.

The first of these aims is
surely laudable, if we concede that there should be zoos in the
first place. But the fact that zoo research contributes to
improving conditions in zoos is not a reason for having them. If
there were no zoos, there would be no need to improve them.

The second aim, to
contribute to human health by providing animal models for human
ailments, appears to justify zoos to some extent, but in practice
this consideration is not as important as one might think. There
are very severe constraints on the experiments that may be
conducted on zoo animals. In an article entitled 'A Search for
Animal Models at Zoos', published in ILAR News in 1982,
Richard Montali and Mitchell Bush drew the following conclusion:

Despite the great potential of a zoo
as a resource for models, there are many limitations and, of
necessity, some restrictions for use. There is little opportunity
to conduct overly manipulative or invasive research procedures -
probably less than would be allowed in clinical research trials
involving human beings. Many of the species are difficult to work
with or are difficult to breed, so that the numbers of animals
available for study are limited. In fact, it is safe to say that
over the past years, humans have served more as 'animal models'
for zoo species than is true of the reverse.

Whether for this reason or
others, much of what has been done in using zoo animals as models
for humans seems redundant or trivial. For example, the article
cited above reports that zoo animals provide good models for
studying lead toxicity in humans, since it is common for zoo
animals to develop lead poisoning from chewing paint and inhaling
polluted city air. There are available for study plenty of humans
who suffer from lead poisoning for the same reasons. That zoos
make available some additional non-human subjects for this kind of
research seems at best unimportant and at worst deplorable.

Finally, there is the goal
of obtaining knowledge about animals for its own sake. Knowledge
is certainly something which is good and, everything being equal,
we should encourage people to seek it for its own sake. But
everything is not equal in this case. There is a moral presumption
against keeping animals in captivity. This presumption can be
overcome only by demonstrating that there are important benefits
that must be obtained in this way if they are to be obtained at
all. It is clear that this is not the case with knowledge for its
own sake. There are other channels for our intellectual curiosity,
ones that do not exact such a high moral price. Although our quest
for knowledge for its own sake is important, it is not important
enough to overcome the moral presumption against keeping animals
in captivity.

In assessing the
significance of research as a reason for having zoos, it is
important to remember that very few zoos do any research at all.
Whatever benefits result from zoo research could just as well be
obtained by having a few zoos instead of the hundreds which now
exist. The most this argument could establish is that we are
justified in having a few very good zoos. It does not provide a
defence of the vast majority of zoos which now exist.

A fourth reason for having
zoos is that they preserve species that would otherwise become
extinct. As the destruction of habitat accelerates and as breeding
programmes become increasingly successful, this rationale for zoos
gains in popularity. There is some reason for questioning the
commitment of zoos to preservation: it can be argued that they
continue to remove more animals from the wild than they return.
Still, zoo breeding programmes have had some notable successes:
without them the Pere David Deer, the Mongolian Wild Horse and the
European Bison would all now be extinct. Recently, however, some
problems have begun to be noticed.

A 1979 study by Katherine
Rails, Kristin Brugger and Jonathan Ballou, which was reported in
Science, convincingly argues that lack of genetic diversity
among captive animals is a serious problem for zoo breeding
programmes. In some species the infant mortality rate among inbred
animals is six or seven times that among non-inbred animals. In
other species the infant mortality rate among inbred animals is
100 per cent. What is most disturbing is that zoo curators have
been largely unaware of the problems caused by inbreeding because
adequate breeding and health records have not been kept. It is
hard to believe that zoos are serious about their role in
preserving endangered species when all too often they do not take
even this

minimal step.

In addition to these
problems, the lack of genetic diversity among captive animals also
means that surviving members of endangered species have traits
very different from their conspecifics in the wild. This should
make us wonder what is really being preserved in zoos. Are captive
Mongolian Wild Horses really Mongolian Wild Horses in any but the
thinnest biological sense?

There is another problem
with zoo breeding programmes: they create many unwanted animals.
In some species (lions, tigers and zebras, for example) a few
males can service an entire herd. Extra males are unnecessary to
the programme and are a financial burden. Some of these animals
are sold and wind up in the hands of individuals and institutions
which lack proper facilities. Others are shot and killed by Great
White Hunters in private hunting camps. In order to avoid these
problems, some zoos have been considering proposals to 'recycle'
excess animals: a euphemism for killing them and feeding their
bodies to other zoo animals. Many people are surprised when they
hear of zoos killing animals. They should not be. Zoos have
limited capacities. They want to maintain diverse collections.
This can be done only by careful management of their 'stock'.

Even if breeding
programmes were run in the best possible way, there are limits to
what can be done to save endangered species. For many large
mammals a breeding herd of at least a hundred animals, half of
them born in captivity, is required if they are to survive in
zoos. As of 1971 only eight mammal species satisfied these
conditions. Paul and Anne Ehrlich estimate in their book
Extinction that under the best possible conditions American
zoos could preserve only about a hundred species of mammals - and
only at a very high price: maintaining a breeding herd of
herbivores costs between $75,000 and $250,000 per year.

There are further
questions one might ask about preserving endangered species in
zoos. Is it really better to confine a few hapless Mountain
Gorillas in a zoo than to permit the species to become extinct? To
most environmentalists the answer is obvious: the species must be
preserved at all costs. But this smacks of sacrificing the
lower-case gorilla for the upper-case Gorilla. In doing this,
aren't we using animals as mere vehicles for their genes? Aren't
we preserving genetic material at the expense of the animals
themselves? If it is true that we are inevitably moving towards a
world in which Mountain Gorillas can survive only in zoos, then we
must ask whether it is really better for them to live in
artificial environments of our design than not to be born at all.

Even if all of these
difficulties are overlooked, the importance of preserving
endangered species does not provide much support for the existing
system of zoos. Most zoos do very little breeding or breed only
species which are not endangered. Many of the major breeding
programmes are run in special facilities which have been
established for that purpose. They are often located in remote
places, far from the attention of zoo-goers. (For example, the
Bronx Zoo operates its Rare Animal Survival Center on St
Catherine's Island off the coast of Georgia, and the National Zoo
runs its Conservation and Research Center in the Shenandoah Valley
of Virginia.) If our main concern is to do what we can to preserve
endangered species, we should support such large-scale breeding
centres rather than conventional zoos, most of which have neither
the staff nor the facilities to run successful breeding
programmes.

The four reasons for
having zoos which I have surveyed carry some weight. But different
reasons provide support for different kinds of zoo. Preservation
and perhaps research are better carried out in large-scale animal
preserves, but these provide few opportunities for amusement and
education. Amusement and perhaps education are better provided in
urban zoos, but they offer few opportunities for research and
preservation. Moreover, whatever benefits are obtained from any
kind of zoo must confront the moral presumption against keeping
wild animals in captivity. Which way do the scales tip? There are
two further considerations which, in my view, tip the scales
against zoos.

First, captivity does not
just deny animals liberty but is often detrimental to them in
other respects as well. The history of chimpanzees in the zoos of
Europe and America is a good example.

Chimpanzees first entered
the zoo world in about 1640 when a Dutch prince, Frederick Henry
of Nassau, obtained one for his castle menagerie. The chimpanzee
didn't last very long. In 1835 the London Zoo obtained its first
chimpanzee; he died immediately. Another was obtained in 1845; she
lived six months. All through the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries zoos obtained chimpanzees who promptly died within nine
months. It wasn't until the 1930s that it was discovered that
chimpanzees are extremely vulnerable to human respiratory
diseases, and that special steps must be taken to protect them.
But for nearly a century zoos removed them from the wild and
subjected them to almost certain death. Problems remain today.
When chimpanzees are taken from the wild the usual procedure is to
shoot the mother and kidnap the child. The rule of thumb among
trappers is that ten chimpanzees die for every one that is
delivered alive to the United States or Europe. On arrival many of
these animals are confined under abysmal conditions.

Chimpanzees are not the
only animals to suffer in zoos. In 1974 Peter Batten, former
director of the San Jose Zoological Gardens, undertook an
exhaustive study of two hundred American zoos. In his book
Living Trophies he documented large numbers of neurotic,
overweight animals kept in cramped, cold cells and fed unpalatable
synthetic food. Many had deformed feet and appendages caused by
unsuitable floor surfaces. Almost every zoo studied had excessive
mortality rates, resulting from preventable factors ranging from
vandalism to inadequate husbandry practices. Battan's conclusion
was: 'The majority of American zoos are badly run, their direction
incompetent, and animal husbandry inept and in some cases
nonexistent.'

Many of these same
conditions and others are documented in Pathology of Zoo
Animals, a review of necropsies conducted by Lynn Griner over
the last fourteen years at the San Diego Zoo. This zoo may well be
the best in the country, and its staff is clearly well-trained and
well-intentioned. Yet this study documents widespread malnutrition
among zoo animals; high mortality rates from the use of
anaesthetics and tranquillizers; serious injuries and
deaths sustained in transport; and frequent occurrences of
cannibalism, infanticide and fighting almost certainly caused by
overcrowded conditions. Although the zoo has learned from its
mistakes, it is still unable to keep many wild animals in
captivity without killing or injuring them, directly or
indirectly. If this is true of the San Diego Zoo, it is certainly
true, to an even greater extent, at most other zoos. The second
consideration is more difficult to articulate but is, to my mind,
even more important. Zoos teach us a false sense of our place in
the natural order. The means of confinement mark a difference
between humans and animals. They are there at our pleasure, to be
used for our purposes. Morality and perhaps our very survival
require that we learn to live as one species among many rather
than as one species over many. To do this, we must forget what we
learn at zoos. Because what zoos teach us is false and dangerous,
both humans and animals will be better off when they are
abolished.